view our brochure (PDF)

Illusions and Realities of Sustainable Development

by Bob Leonard
Mexico

What is Development?

Let us first decide what development is and what it is not. It can easily be confused with relief. Disasters are seen frequently on TV – a major flood, earthquake with thousands homeless – or perhaps a famine – or displaced people running from a war. People need food, water, clothing, drugs, and they need it right away. It must be flown in, distribution must be organized and the items must reach the people. It is also important to keep the rate of stealing and profiteering down. It is fast moving, demanding, exciting and challenging, and is vital to humanitarian aid, but it is not development. It is relief. Development is quite different. Development is not about taking care of temporary situations, but is focused on permanent, sustainable change. Development is building the capacity of people, communities, local organizations, and local and national governments to build a better life for themselves and their country. It is about helping people develop the hope and the confidence that they can “do it themselves” – if they work together. It may involve some outside help initially, but they, the people have to do it themselves. A much used phrase is appropriate here: “Don’t give me a fish, but teach me how to fish.” In relief you rescue; in development you allow the people and the country to work things out themselves but with your assistance. You are like a therapist working with a client. If you rescue a person, you ruin their chance of bringing themselves through the problem and deprive them of the knowledge that they did it themselves and the pride that goes along with that. The key is ownership and sustainability, and the only way to get that, is for people to do it themselves.

For the first thirty or forty years of development as we know it today, beginning after World War II, development was about going into poor countries with a set agenda. Countries were “examined” and experts decided what they needed and then built a vast array of structures from power plants and dams to schools, clinics, water wells and latrines. Sometimes, but not always, government leaders were involved in working out plans, and then the experts proceeded to build these edifices that would help make the countries grow and prosper. We were kind of making small Marshall Plans all over the world. This is sometimes referred to the “Cookie Cutter” approach. What we did in one place, we thought we could do everywhere. It has been very frustrating to see supposed experts, often PhDs with little experience in the field, come into a country and say, “We did this in Ghana or Eastern Europe or wherever and we will do it here the same way.”

After years of doing things this way, we started assessing our work and began going to these places three or four years after the projects were completed. What did we find? Roads that were full of pot holes and barely negotiable, dams that created environmental nightmares and displaced viable communities, empty or dilapidated schools and clinics, wells that were broken and not working and latrines that were used for storage. Children were going to schools with holes in the roof and the floors and with windows out – rain and cold wind coming through. What happened? Why? We were using the top down, cookie cutter approach. We didn’t ask the people who would use these services what their needs were. We thought we knew their problems much better than they did and therefore we knew the answers. We also thought that what worked in one country would work in all countries. Another realization was that we were patronizing people, and as such, were increasing their sense of dependency, the opposite of what development was supposed to do. It was clear that we were not getting the people that used these structures involved in the process.

What do we mean by “the process?” Let us take a situation in a certain area of a country. We know that schools and clinics are in terrible shape and that school enrollment has dropped by fifty percent in the past 10 years; there is no portable water; the roads leading into the communities are terrible, and it takes over two hours to get to a decent market. In addition, the average woman has 4.5 abortions during her life and infant mortality is exceptionally high. There is an irrigation canal that connects to most of the farmer’s fields but it is full of weeds and little water makes it through. The farmers are using old seeds that produce about 20% of what modern seeds would produce and they are not drought resistance.

The cheapest and most efficient thing to do to solve these problems is to hire contractors and rebuild the roads, schools and clinics and clean up the irrigation canals. The people would cheer us. We would be heroes, but when we came back five or ten years later, it would probably look just as it was before we did the work. Why, because it was our project not theirs. They had no ownership. They would probably just wait for us or someone else to come along and help them fix the things that broke down. The old rescue game. The project, as they saw it, belonged to the World Bank, USAid, CARE, Save the Children or whatever organization was responsible for building it. Sometimes the project was built by the government, often as a vote getting strategy, but the same lack of ownership applies. They were glad to have the school or the clinic, but it was not their project. There was little effort by the project instigators to involve the citizens. For example, in the case of water wells that provided clean drinking water, no one really explained what dirty water did to the body, and what was in the dirty water that came out of a nearby stream or pond that caused people to be sick. No one discussed that bacteria coming from human and animal waste gets into the water and causes so many problems. They also didn’t help the communities to set up maintenance funds to pay for well parts nor did they teach them how to fix the wells. When the wells broke down, people simply went back to their old ways. So we had thousands of broken wells and dilapidated schools and clinics all over the developing world – remnants of a top down/ cookie cutter, and yes, arrogant approach to development.

Development people finally realized that they had it wrong, and they had to make some changes. Changes that got people involved – the people in the communities. Let the project be their project. People not only had to be involved, but they had to be involved from the beginning, that is they had to be involved throughout the process: in the problem solving, planning, implementation and maintenance. In other words, people had to have complete ownership. It also meant the community was not only leading the decision making and implementation process but also putting their labor and some of their money into the project. This is also crucial.

Attitude

This new approach brought about a whole new change in attitude on the part of development workers. It starts with the idea that we have only limited knowledge of countries that are not our own, and in fact, can never really ever truly know them. In addition, we see things through a Western perspective. This new approach is the awareness that people in communities have the ability to do things for themselves. They know their communities and their problems, and even though in many parts of the world, people have a very low rate of education, they are intelligent and have the innate ability to create an array of incredible solutions to their problems with some encouragement. The development specialist is more of a catalyst, sometimes a coach and often a cheerleader. His/her job is to bring people together, help them communicate, problem-solve, plan and implement projects that will improve their lives and at the same time build a sense of cohesiveness and trust. What they are really doing is increasing the ability of people to self determine and control their lives. We in development call this capacity building.

The big problem is that many people in developing countries have little hope of improving their lot. They feel they cannot improve their circumstances and life will always be the same with little or no hope for improvement. It is a pervasive feeling of helplessness. What the community development worker hopes for is that if the community can organize itself, complete a strategic plan and build a successful project or program that betters their lives and they do it with little outside help, then the community will move from a very basic level of development to another very important level. Once they have that success and reach that first level or hurdle, then they can go on to the next level and the next. Confidence improves, and hope is established. The key is to help people get to that first level. After that they can do more and more with less and less assistance. Development people often want to say, “Wonderful,” and move on; but this is not how things work well. One can’t abandon them. There must be a continued relationship between the development organization and the community with periodic visits, reinforcement for the behavior change, encouragement, and assistance with problem solving and the continued growth process in the community.

Culture

One of the crucial aspects of successful development is to be aware of the culture in which we are working and learn to appreciate it, and more importantly to work with and through it. In most developing countries, their culture is their strength. This means working through the traditional system, the elders, women and youth groups. It may mean working with monks in Southeastern Asia and mullahs in Islamic countries. The key is to learn the culture, appreciate it, trust it and work with it. That means not imposing your culture on them – not forcing them to adopt your culture.

For me, one of the biggest issues is that we as development workers are imposing our Western values and culture on these countries. Over the years I have seen this happen on a regular basis, and I have been a part of it. I believe some of it is beneficial; some not so, and in some situations I question whether we are doing the right thing. What I do know is that we have to be sensitive and aware, to listen and to show respect, not only in our thoughts, but in our actions. Saying that, I know that we can have great influence on other cultures simply because they often see us as knowing all – wise and full of knowledge and are quick to adopt our ways. This is sad, but often true.

Most development specialists I know see the uniqueness of the other culture and actually love that culture, especially if they have lived in villages and provincial towns where they get the true flavor of the people. This unfortunately is not always true with development workers and is frequently not true for PhDs coming out of universities and think tanks, unless they have significant field development experience. Sometimes they show their arrogance and lack of sensitivity, and frequently their designs of projects and programs are very unrealistic and unworkable because of this attitude.

After working in my first developing country, the thing that struck me the most is how different their culture is from our Western culture. In fact, if you had a continuum and put opposites on each end with the Western traits on the left and developing countries on the right, it would look like the following:

Individualism vs. family and community orientation – individualism is looked upon as selfish in most countries;
Speaking out vs. listening – one is taught to listen not to speak out
Aggressive vs. passive – In many developing countries, one is taught from birth not to ask questions or offer opinions but simply to obey
Success and opportunity vs. working for the family
Respect for young vs. respect for elders – elders are the traditional decision makers and are honored
Respect for opportunity vs. love and respect for traditions – tradition in many societies is the glue that holds communities together
Assertiveness vs. timid ness
Analysis of concepts and giving ideas vs. rote learning
Constant change and adaptation of the culture vs. love of the established culture
Leniency with children vs. children are strictly raised
Respect and authority is often challenged both in home and in society vs. strong respect for all forms of authority
Democracy vs. Patron / Client relationships where each family is under a patron and is sub servant to him/her, while the patron is obligated to take care of his clients and get them jobs, etc.
Directness and candidness vs. formalism, protocol and politeness

You would find in general that developing countries would be on one end of the continuum and the US would be far on the opposite end. European countries would also be on the opposite end but not nearly as far as North Americans. These are just a few examples; there are many more.

Family

As we look at culture, let us begin with the family. Several times young men, particularly in Muslim countries, have looked me straight in the eye and said, “The reason I am in this world is to serve my family. There is no other reason. The family is everything.” Children are strictly brought up to observe old family and tribal traditions that have an honored place in every household. Uncles and aunts and the elders receive great respect and must always be obeyed. Never would you put your parents in an “old folk’s home.” After the family, come the tribe and or the community. In many countries, personal and family identity almost ends here. There is little identity with the state, and often little interest in democracy. People just want to do their farming or small scale trading and get on with their lives; they only hope that the police and the soldiers will leave them alone.

There is often little sense of the rule of law. Edicts from the governor or the president can be much more important than any act of parliament, which is often just a talking body with questionable relevance. Pride in the family is everything, and to shame your family is the unthinkable. To shame another person is to shame his/her family. Often so called democratic elections, where candidates vie against each other with critical remarks, can run square in the face of traditions and cause long lasting bitterness and hostilities. (We won’t get into this here, but democracy as we know it in the West is often not appropriate in certain countries – at least not at the time it is pushed. Democracy usually has to be brought about over time, developing from the ground up.) So in many countries one never causes another to lose face. You don’t win totally in any type of dealing, rather you try to let the other one save face. So people work for compromise where both sides win. We often talk about this in Western countries, but often we go out to crush the other guy.

Thinking

Just the way one thinks can be quite different between Western and developing countries. The western way perhaps comes from Greece, back to and before Aristotle’s time. Its basis is thinking in concrete and objective terms, that is defining an object in terms of its color, height, shape and other physical qualities. The object becomes precise. It is clearly defined and definite. The world around us is thus clearly shaped and defined in clear, objective and concrete terms. The Chinese and other Asian countries take a different turn. They see objects relating to other objects in complex relationships with one another. If you do something to one object, it will have an effect on other objects. It is a more holistic view. They see things as a whole and therefore with more complexity. We in the West want to see things in simple concrete terms, while they say that things are more complicated; and they will urge more study and more time for decisions. We, particularly Americans, want clear, quick and easy answers and decisions. We in the West tend to see things as either black or white or good or bad, while Asians see things as more grey with both sides having value and importance. Western languages can be more concrete and precise while some other languages are more poetic and symbolic. Our culture and language is designed to clearly define problems, analyze them, decide quickly on the solution and make it happen. These traits have their roots in our values. We tend to see our solution as the only solution whereas, the Eastern mind tends to see both sides of any situation and will study the consequences of each side, sometimes it feels like the studies go on forever.

When I speak of thinking, I must mention the “Soviet Mind Set.” After 70 years of Soviet rule, people in the now independent states of the former Soviet Union have acquired a mind set that can cripple development. The mind set is that the government takes care of everything and people wait until the government comes in and takes care of the problem, even though the community may be perfectly capable doing it themselves. There is a saying, “What’s in my house, I take care of, anything else is up to government.” Since most of these governments now have little or no funds to repair community roads, gas lines, electricity or schools and clinics, these services go into an almost total state of disrepair. In addition, people are hesitant to join any group or to instigate a new initiative from old fears of former Soviet reprisals for fermenting trouble. Compounding the problem is a distrust of any government body or initiative, and government is looked upon as an entity that chronically demands bribes.

Methodology

Mobilizing the Community

Let us take community development as the model for development as this is the basic foundation of all development interventions including health, agriculture, small business, micro finance and civil society. Some community development is done by multi-national organizations like the UN, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, but most development is done by what are called NGOs, which means Non Government Organizations. They can be international like CARE, OXFAM or Save the Children or they can be national or even local organizations.

The initial step in community development is for the development professionals (led by either an international or local NGO but mostly with national staff) to go into a community or village, meet with the local authorities and then with the various leaders and groups such as elders, women and youth to explain who the agency is, what the program is about and to see if they would be interested in exploring the possibility of working together.

The important thing is to visit all groups – not only their leaders but also the people in those groups. Bringing local government into the process adds a very powerful dimension. It must be kept in mind that this whole process, with its openness and transparency, is usually a totally new experience for all parties, particularly government, and it can help unite the community, increase openness, and build trust between government and the community. In the end, because of the buy-in by government, they often provide much needed material and political support. In addition, local government officials who were one skeptical of the whole community development process, often become its greatest champions.

Sometimes agencies go in with the promise of funding projects but many NGOs go in only promising to work with the community. It is made clear from the start that the initial interventions will focus on training to prepare the community to make changes. If they show interest, then a general meeting is scheduled to fully explain the program to the whole community. If the community decides they want to be involved, the process begins.

The key to the whole enterprise is that the community organizes itself within the framework of the development process: women, youth and marginalized groups all need to be involved. The community chooses a committee that will represent the whole community, sometimes by election or perhaps by selection (sometimes this is a better method as selection is based on compromise and is often more traditional). They may also set up sub committees in the areas of health, agriculture, education and later, a maintenance committee. These representative groups are required to maintain communication with the community as a whole throughout the ensuing process. After the committee(s) is chosen, specialized trainers are brought in to train people in management, planning, community assessment, problem solving, project design and implementation, monitoring and evaluation, maintenance and even gender (a very popular training focusing on the roles of men and women.) During the training, new ideas are introduced and discussions follow, raising the issues of how these new ideas conflict or mesh with the way things are usually done in the community. Sometimes the discussions are heated and other times people are surprised at how helpful the new ideas are, but always the discussions are an opportunity for people to think about and adapt the ideas to the reality in their community. This is also a time for people to think of other ways that things could be done to improve the life of the community.

During this mobilization process that is led by the NGO, the community is involved in participatory, experiential workshops occasionally with the whole community invited (sometimes over 200 people participate) with small group discussions. Another mobilization method is to work in small groups rather than in a large workshop. Both methods have excellent results. During this process the community will look at some of the following:

Their past history, i.e. when founded, important events, what they have accomplished, what has worked in the past and what hasn’t;
Identify community resources: human (doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers), infrastructure (local authorities, clinics, hospitals, agriculture stations, roads, wells) and material (water supply, raw materials, farm land);
Draw a map of the community with resources as well as the structures plotted;
Draw up a seasonal calendar – planting, harvesting, etc;
Identify the main problems in the community, their causes and root causes. After each problem or cause they ask, “Why.” So they can identify the causes;
Turn problems into solutions and then into long range goals;
Prioritize these goals into projects and select one project to work on;
Establish a Project Committee.

The important rule for the NGO mobilizers (Non Governmental Organizations like American Red Cross or CARE that do development work) is that they don’t offer solutions or even content as to what the communities should do. They may raise issues for the community to consider, but rarely do they add advice. Rather, when they see a community stuck on some issue or heading in a questionable direction, they will raise up possibilities or ideas so the community can reevaluate their position and examine other options. They could be considered a catalyst in helping the communities see their own potential.

Transparency and openness are the keywords and no one person or group is allowed to dominate. In addition, women and youth are encouraged to participate, and many NGOs require that 30-40% of the project committee be women. In some Muslim countries, husbands often won’t allow their wives to attend these meetings, so it is difficult to impose this percentage. However, once the community is mobilized and people have been working with the NGO workers and see the wide participation of the community, this problem often disappears; and women become active members and leaders of committees.

In one model, if a project is developed by the community and chosen for funding by the NGO, the community contributes 20-25% of the cost, usually in materials and labor. Most NGOs also insist that 5% of the contribution is in cash; this is usually the first time the community is required to take real responsibility for making improvements. Some communities are not able to mobilize the community contribution and the project is not implemented; often they are able to come back and mobilize the resources later. The NGO, with funding from outside donors, funds the remainder of the project.

A fairly new development is that NGOs are now assisting mobilized communities to get together and elect representatives to form a Cluster Group representing perhaps 15 to 25 communities in a region or province. Some communities that have excelled are trained to do the mobilization themselves with other communities and later bring the newly mobilized community into the cluster group. The Cluster Group works closely with local and regional government to do regional planning. They also become a powerful advocacy voice that has an impact on local government and can make a tremendous beginning toward the rise of civil society and democracy. Think of it this way. One village can only do so much with, let’s say district government; but when you these 15 to 25 communities, who remember already have support from their own local government, team up on issues that are important to them, you have power and even regional government tends to listen.

The goal then is to empower communities to become pro-active in their own development and to network with other communities and local government to encourage regional problem solving and planning. In doing this you create a bottom up – communities openly becoming pro-active, top down - government bodies interacting with local communities system that reinforces its own successes.

Women in Development

Understanding the importance of involving women in development projects is absolutely crucial. We learned long ago, that if a project doesn’t involve women, it is doomed to failure – not always, but mostly. In developing countries (we won’t deal with Western countries), men often use money on women, gambling, and drinking, and will also spend money on projects that are impractical. Women will go to any length to insure that there is money to feed, clothe and care for their children – whatever it takes. They have a toughness and a no nonsense attitude that make things work. They are much quicker to grasps ideas and work out details, and their implementation skills are superior to men – at least from my experience and from the experience of most of the development specialists I have known. In the many management and planning trainings that I have led, people work in small groups and are given problems to work out, women always much quicker, and their answers are more detailed and logical. We ask why? Often, men are sitting under a shade tree drinking tea and sharing stories, while the women are cooking, cleaning the house, taking care of the children, working in the garden, washing clothes and fetching water perhaps three or four kilometers away. They are often the doer’s in the development world. At first they are reluctant to speak in discussions and accede to the men, but since the whole process of mobilization is to get everyone to speak and participate; once they get started, they can be the most verbal and the most persuasive.

Project Implementation

The Project Committee selects an engineer, or someone who is able to draw up plans for the project and this, along with a budget, is submitted to the community for approval. The community approves the plans, and the NGO trainers come in to conduct the trainings mentioned above. When this is completed, money and materials are collected, and the work schedule is completed. Occasionally the local government will contribute some materials. In addition, a maintenance committee is selected and funding for the maintenance fund is established. The project construction then begins. The project could be a school, clinic, irrigation, water well, electrical or gas supply or any number of things, even the planting of trees. The most important aspect of completing a community project is the level of self-esteem and confidence that it generates in the community so that the nature of the actual project becomes secondary.

As previously stated, the budget is approved by the whole village. The budget is also posted on a bulletin board that is placed in a conspicuous place where everyone will have access. All expenditures of projects, individual contributions to projects, members of committees, the schedule of work groups and other important items will be posted on this board. This transparency is most often a totally new experience for communities, as most previous dealings were done by one powerful person (usually a man) or a small group and in secrecy. This openness and transparency is one of the most important elements in community development, is a real prelude to developing a civil society and sets the stage for grass roots democracy.

Usually upon completion of the project, there is a formal opening with dignitaries and a speech by the district governor along with festivities. In attending many of these occasions, I often heard the Chairman of the Project Committee or others say, “This is a new beginning of progress for our community, and this is also the beginning of democracy.” This process may have taken about six to eight months and is not the end of the relationship between the NGO and the community. For the next two or three years, the NGO will visit the community to offer support and encouragement. It is hoped that the community will plan and implement other projects on its own. Many communities are trained in proposal writing to enlist other donors for different projects. Communities also begin to appreciate what they can accomplish with the resources within the community augmented perhaps by resources at the local government level.

Lack of Planning Skills

Westerners, particularly Americans, are future oriented. They are always planning, setting objectives, writing meeting schedules, achieving things, and meeting deadlines. They know the meaning of milestones, goals, objectives and the other elements of planning. It is part of their daily life. It is part of their value system – success. It is making the future wonderful. This is a great part of their strength. In most developing countries, today is the main thing that is important. People work hard, sometimes at three or four jobs, twelve hours a day and sometimes seven days a week, but “today” is the main focus along with family. Little energy is spent on laying out plans for the future, or at least not as we experience it in the West.

I say the above because in the many management and planning workshops that I have conducted, I realized almost immediately that these planning axioms, i.e. goals, objectives had little meaning for the participants, even with governors and ministers. My interpreters told me repeatedly that all of these concepts were new to them. The word goal or objective was not even in the Fijian or Khmer language. In some countries, the closest thing was a target that you shoot arrows into. While leading a planning workshop for a district council in Fiji, we asked the participants to development some goals for their communities. They all gave us that blank look, and for the next fifteen minutes, we went over what goals were. We again asked them to identify or make up some goals. Still no movement. We then led them in a guided dream where they imagined that they left their villages and went away to an island in the middle of the ocean for five years. They left behind all of their people to do good work for their communities. They were asked to fantasize what these people were doing to improve their communities during all this time. When we brought them out of the dream, we asked them to write down all of the things that the people did while they were away. With no hesitation, they wrote down a whole array of projects and programs, which they immediately turned into goals. They never had trouble with goals or objectives again. A similar incident happened in Cambodia with the provincial governors. People don’t have experience with these planning concepts, but can use them once they are connected to something people know and understand - language, concepts, traditions, etc.

By far the most significant exercise we ever delivered was an exercise in Brainstorming!! In most of these cultures, there is usually a very defined protocol. That is, you never talk when the chief is present, or an elder, or if you are a woman or a youth. It was almost impossible to get a discussion going as the person with the most stature almost completely dominated the conversation. To counter this we always started workshops with a brainstorming exercise in small groups, where each person in the small group had to give one idea and they would keep going around the tables until all ideas were exhausted. The process required everybody to participate, even the youth and women. The people with the greatest status loved the process and were astounded at the great ideas that came out of each group. That broke the ice, and from that time on, brainstorming was the rule of the workshop and usually the rule for interaction far into the future. Everybody became relaxed and everybody participated. Planning became participatory planning and management became participatory management – all in very autocratic, top down cultures and countries.

Participatory planning became the prime mover in community development. Communities that had never gotten together except for funerals and weddings now brought hundreds of people together to raise issues, analyze, plan and implement projects.

NGO and National Staff Capacity Building

More and more national and local NGOs are implementing development work and are eliminating the need for foreign staff on a long term basis. As one can imagine, foreign staff and their families are expensive to bring into a country and maintain there. Most of the really good, professional, foreign development organizations strive to bring host country national staff into management and supervisory positions as quickly as possible. This requires a good deal of training and field experience, but is one of the most rewarding and exciting results of development. As the capacity of staff expands, they grow and develop and excel and finally take over a position that was held by a foreigner. This is and should be an ongoing process. In most countries, it is often an amazing transformation and is beautiful to watch.

The British development organization Oxfam goes even further. They come into a developing country with the purpose of not only building the capacity of national staff, but to devolve different projects and programs into national NGOs. An example would be establishing a health program in five districts with a regional operating office in one of the regions. The operating office would coordinate the work in all districts and would be managed at first by foreigner with experience in this type of program. It is important to remember that the national staff may have little or no experience in development and will need to start with basics. A few may be doctors or nurses, but this in no way means that they can execute a development program. His/her job will be not only to manage the program, but also to build the capacity of staff to run the program themselves. Over a period of perhaps two to three years, the staff implements the field programs and learn by doing; but they also go to many trainings in this and other fields. They participate in Lessons Learned workshops with other NGOs in the same field and share their experiences. Once they have mastered their work and some have mastered basic management skills, Oxfam/UK will spin this program/project into a national NGO with the present staff. The staff then establishes themselves as an organization and become an independent NGO with their own budget and governance. Oxfam/UK supports them as advisors in management, financial management and planning, and offers financial support for a given period of time. They also provide training in how to raise funds both within and outside the country. One of the great things about Oxfam/UK is that they refuse to accept more than 10% of their total budget from the British or any other government. They do this because they want to do development their way, and because they don’t want any interference from government entities with political agendas.

One of the key aspects of development is to work with national and local NGOs in their growth so they can deliver development in a professional way. In most countries, these NGOs lack basic management and planning skills and have little concept of fund raising as we know it in the U.S. They also lack financial management skills. Many programs have been developed, mainly dealing with training in different development skills and in management, planning, fund raising and financial management. In addition, these NGOs build coalitions for networking and advocacy as well as sharing experiences and ideas. As a result they begin to take over more and more of the work of the international NGOs, and the skills they develop remain in the country for the distant future.

Changing Culture

Because we were breaking through protocol and ancient traditions by having youth, women and other people brainstorming ideas freely with the community elders, chiefs and other senior and prominent people; we were constantly afraid that this was imposing our culture on theirs. We brought this up in workshops, broke people up into small groups and asked them to list the things that would work and would not work in their culture, and also asked them what they would throw out. They always insisted in very strong terms, that this is just what they needed, and that their historical tradition was that elders, chiefs and other key people would traditionally listen to their people before making a decision. This just takes it a step further. Several influential people have told me that this is the only thing that will save their culture from the onslaught of commercialism and globalization. “We need to know how to problem solve, plan and then manage those plans,” was often heard.

Government as a Partner – Top Down/Bottom Up

As previously stated, getting local government involved in the community mobilization process produced amazing results. What about going a step further and involving top level government officials including cabinet ministers, secretary generals and the like? When they understand the process and see the results of what community development can accomplish, they can become enthusiastic supporters. They can use their influence and power to bring the provincial and district governors into the development mindset.

In the Fiji Islands, all the governors were trained in participatory management and planning, followed by the deputy governors. The enthusiasm in learning these new skills was so great that the deputy governors asked to be trained as trainers, and a training manual was written in Fijian. After the trainings, they then went to their various districts and led district councils in these disciplines, during which the councils developed strategic development plans for their districts.

In Cambodia, this writer trained top officials in the Ministry of Interior in participatory management and planning every day for two weeks. This ministry hires and fires all provincial governors, deputy governors and staff. This was followed by the two week training for the deputy governors, and later with thirteen provincial offices. In all of the provincial offices that I covered and during their two week workshops, they developed strategic plans and actins plans for their districts. Shortly afterwards, UNDP (the development arm of the UN) implemented a program in four important provinces, two of which were former Khmer Rouge strongholds. Before the project began, each province was ruled by feudal warlord governor with absolute power. There was no such thing as real elections in the provinces. The new project trained the governors and their staff in management, planning, civil society and other key disciplines. They also trained the staff to be community mobilizers. These trained staff then went in and mobilized villages throughout the four provinces. They helped them set up village and district councils by democratic elections and funded infrastructure projects chosen by the communities. The project was so successful, that the government set up a system where all provinces in the country elected district councils in the same way.

In Azerbaijan, I was involved as a consultant in a twenty one million dollar World Bank project where the government is working with three local NGOs who are mobilizing 400 communities. These communities are going through the whole process of evaluating themselves, identifying problems, setting goals and implementing projects. No International NGOs are involved.

Uganda is a special case of top down/bottom up development. In 1997 the president decided that the government needed to decentralize. They visited many countries who were about to put in decentralization plans. Everyone they talked to said they needed to do a lot of planning before decentralization, and in fact, none ever did. So the Ugandan president decided, even though they were not ready and would meet many problems, to go through with it anyway. They passed a law devolving both planning and financial authority away from the ministries in the capitol to the various villages and districts. The law set up a system where elections were held in each village and district to elect village councils and district councils respectively. Now instead of the education ministry in the capitol deciding where a school should go, the communities and districts made those decisions from their democratically elected councils. The councils had the authority to tax and to build these schools in addition to clinics and other development projects.

USAid and other development organizations then came in and gave training in management, planning, financial management, civil society and other disciplines to these village and district councils. This has changed the whole dynamics of the country. The bottom line is that you accomplish so much more when you get government involved.

Unfortunately, corruption is a huge problem. It is institutionalized in most developing countries, and is almost a way of life. It is debilitating and keeps a country from breaking out of the third world quagmire. But you have to deal with it, and the only way is to let the government know that if they want us to come in, we will not tolerate any corruption. Moreover, we will provide monitoring and audits to make sure corruption will be identified and stopped. It is surprising how much good effect this has, even though problems continue. Bringing government, both national and local, into the process can have dramatic effects both for the communities and for the government itself.

U.S. Foreign Aid

When asked what percent of the U.S. budget is devoted to foreign aid, most Americans say about 23%. The actual number is less than 1%, and the majority of that money goes to Israel and Egypt. Most of the three billion that we give to Israel is for military aid. It is difficult to get good figures on how much of our total foreign aid is for military purposes, but most observers believe it is quite high. Since 2002, the amount of foreign aid has doubled, but most of that money has gone to countries which are supporting us on the War on Terror, particularly countries like Pakistan. It is believed that most of this increase is for military purposes.

The U.S. gives by far the most money for foreign aid, over 27 billion dollars annually, although when the funds devoted to the military are taken out, the figure is closer to 14 billion. When compared to other developed countries on the basis of percent of GNP, the level of foreign aid from the U.S. is last, even using the 27 billion figure. Norway and Sweden give four times as much as we do as a percent of their GNPs, and when one takes away the money that we give for military aid, the figures become most amazing. What is particularly sad is to think of what we could have done with the 300 billion we have already spent on the war in Iraq if we had used it for aid to poor countries.

Another issue is that the U.S. has a reputation for using foreign aid for strategic purposes, and that often aid is increased to countries that have brutal dictatorships because what they are doing is in our “strategic interests.” In addition, Congress is known to have too much influence on our aid program, often earmarking significant funds for “pet” projects, making it difficult to develop programs that respond to country specific needs, or denying funding for particular interventions such as aspects of reproductive health programs, again making it difficult for programs to respond to specific needs in a particular country. We also have a reputation for making programs too short - pushing programs to show short term results - rather than funding longer, more sustainable programs. In spite of this, USAid, our primary conduit for non-military foreign aid, is extremely professional, and does an excellent job in spite of constant constraints from Congress and the Executive Branch.

Conclusion

Development is so multi-dimensional, involving so many cultures, disciplines, contradictions and complexities that one short paper like this cannot do justice to the topic. My attempt is to give the reader a little glimpse into this fascinating and complex world, and perhaps help him/her get a little feel for the process. I also want to say that I have no experience in the development field in Mexico, Central or South America, and therefore make no claim to expertise regarding these countries. I would only say that the above principles apply world wide, but implementation is something entirely different. Each country, and for that matter, each village is unique in its own way. The important thing for any development specialist to do is to treat each community as an organization all to itself and to make no assumptions, and more importantly to learn from them.

The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently ...and Why -- by Richard Nisbett

To leave comments on this paper: click here.

To read comments already contributed: click here.

index of papers